I've brought this up a few times recently, and its nothing new here in DC, but it never seems to gain much traction... why do we have a COMPLETELY independent entity in charge of our money?

Its just a series of simple questions that add up to an ugly answer IMO... why are they called Federal, when they're not Federal at all.

Why are they allowed to control the American taxpayers money when they're NOT bound by FEDERAL law?

If they're not bound by our laws, if a US Congressman or committee cant force them to answer where billions and trillions of OUR money have gone, what law ARE they bound by?

I've read explanations here from both sides in the distant past, but nothing sticks out to me as a "oh, ok that makes perfect sense" answer... the reasons are vague and full of ambiguity, IIRC they're the kind of answers that even very educated people are confused by, but they make excuses for this "system" just because "that's the way things have been since 1913"

It seems like these guys fly under the radar 24/7... the media wont cover it and it isn't even possible to get a message board to address it seems, so I ask again... why are they necessary and who do they answer to? in todays world, why should we trust a group of bankers who answer to no KNOWN body?

Just remember 1 thing, the Fed prints money that is backed by nothing more than the full faith and credit of the USA. In other words, the ****ing tax payers.

You have to be more accurate than that Pete. The Fed doesn't print money. The Treasury is who prints money. The Fed has dramatically expanded credit and kept interest rates low so banks could recapitalize by lending at an abnormally high spread and stimulate economic activity by expanding credit.

It might have sounded good then, but human nature finds a way, and find a way they have to circumnavigate the system... its corrupt, period.

When they can tell Congress to go get ****ed instead of answering simple questions that this country has every right to ask, with NO fear whatsoever... its garbage, period.

I don't need some after school special cartoon to tell me that, either.

...The not answering of where the bailout funds was done for a reason. Bernanke and the other Fed governors felt that if they identified who received the bailout funds then there would be runs on those institutions thus necessitating the need for additional funds for those banks.

The context matters for that question (something CoMo and other fringe nut jobs ignore).

You can disagree with whether Bernanke should have answered that question without seeing some grand conspiracy (FTR, I disagreed with the non-answer at the time).

You have to be more accurate than that Pete. The Fed doesn't print money.

This is correct. The Fed doesn't print money. They press a bunch of buttons on a keyboard, and create it without the need for paper.

__________________
Ehyeh asher ehyeh.

"You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream – the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order – or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism." -Ronald Reagan

This is an important and fundamental question that no one can ever give a good answer to. I mean the entire meeting of the people that formed the Fed was so secret they only used first names at the meeting. President Wilson conceded after he signed it into law that he did a bad thing.

What? Did they wear masks?
Did they not already probably know each other? WTF are you saying?

This is a classic DC thread. Take a reasonable topic (the Fed) and then go overboard with exaggerated and/or false assertions that that soon veer off into nutso land. We even have a CIA killed JFK claim here.

This is a classic DC thread. Take a reasonable topic (the Fed) and then go overboard with exaggerated and/or false assertions that that soon veer off into nutso land. We even have a CIA killed JFK claim here.

Eerily reminiscent of the "No gay customers allowed!" parody that you fell hook line & sinker for over the weekend.

This is a classic DC thread. Take a reasonable topic (the Fed) and then go overboard with exaggerated and/or false assertions that that soon veer off into nutso land. We even have a CIA killed JFK claim here.

Don't knock that assertion until you watch RFK Must Die, for those who think its all too terrible to cover up so well and to last so long, just watch it. Anyway, see what a little truth can do? A subject like this can even bring far left and far right together in agreement in mutual derision, when that happens, that's how I know I'm on the right track.

I was going to post the full doc here, but lo and behold its not found, everything else in the whole wide world can be found online but not this humble documentary, gee wonder why... praise God! for my local library.

Don't knock that assertion until you watch RFK Must Die, for those who think its all too terrible to cover up so well and to last so long, just watch it. Anyway, see what a little truth can do? A subject like this can even bring far left and far right together in agreement in mutual derision, when that happens, that's how I know I'm on the right track.

I was going to post the full doc here, but lo and behold its not found, everything else in the whole wide world can be found online but not this humble documentary, gee wonder why... praise God! for my local library.

He didn't tell him to **** off. He very calmly explained the common-sense reasons for not disclosing the specific participants and also said its been done for years and there's been 100% success.

He didn't tell him to **** off. He very calmly explained the common-sense reasons for not disclosing the specific participants and also said its been done for years and there's been 100% success.

Yes, I am knocking the assertion.

When an international banker/bankers in complete charge of US monetary policy can give ONE WORD ANSWERS to Congressman... its nothing less than telling them to pound sand.

Just read ol Bens body language, he thought about it for a split second, summoned the rights and spine he thinks he has and gave a very confident one word answer... NO... c'mon man, 2.2 trillion and he's confident enough to sit there with a calm and stonefaced ONE WORD ANSWER we don't owe you an explantion, NO we don't have to tell America or its laws where this money went, and I dare you to do anything about it.

If you find that kind of answer acceptable, Cosmo, I don't know that anything further arguing is going to help... they are above and beyond American Constitutional law at this point.

Oversight you want is it?... NO, end of discussion, we control your future, America has been hijacked.

He didn't tell him to **** off. He very calmly explained the common-sense reasons for not disclosing the specific participants and also said its been done for years and there's been 100% success.

Yes, I am knocking the assertion.

Yeah, you buy that shit cause you don't know any better. They didn't want to disclose because the entire thing was nothing more than a GS bailout. They had to layer the crap and they did and you bought it.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

All kinds of people vote. Not enough of those people think highly enough of Trump to make him President but all kinds of people vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

So, if they were polling better than Trump and the primary goal was to prevent Hillary from becoming POTUS, perhaps it would have been a better strategic decision to nominate someone who actually had a chance of beating her and preventing that than nominating Donald Trump.

I'd really like pete to elaborate on the meetings so secret that the participants ONLY USED FIRST NAMES.

the fact you didn't even know about the meeting which created "The Fed" shows you have no clue about the topic and therefore should shut it.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

All kinds of people vote. Not enough of those people think highly enough of Trump to make him President but all kinds of people vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

So, if they were polling better than Trump and the primary goal was to prevent Hillary from becoming POTUS, perhaps it would have been a better strategic decision to nominate someone who actually had a chance of beating her and preventing that than nominating Donald Trump.